Een melding van de BBC van vanmorgen - commentaar overbodig:The International Committee of the Red Cross has described the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza as people "trapped in despair".In a report, it said that a main cause was the continuing Israeli blockade.The report comes six months after the end of Israel's military offensive in Gaza in which at least 1,100 Palestinians died (1100?, het waren er ruim 1400).Israel said the offensive was aimed at curbing rocket attacks into southern Israel by Palestinian militants.The Red Cross says that the people of Gaza are unable to rebuild their lives and sliding ever deeper into despair. There is not the cement or steel to reconstruct neighbourhoods hit by Israeli strikes.

Seriously ill patients are not receiving the treatment they need. The water supply is patchy, sanitation on the point of collapse.Poverty is at what the Red Cross calls an "alarming" level. Large numbers of children are malnourished.All this, says the Red Cross, is directly linked to Israel's tight closure of the crossing points into Gaza after the Islamist Hamas movement took power there two years ago.The Israeli prime minister's spokesman told the BBC that Hamas is primarily responsible for the hardship of Gaza's civilian population.And he said the idea that, should building materials be allowed in, Hamas would not siphon them off for what he called its military machine was simply not credible.

zondag 28 juni 2009

The first time I met Amnon Kapéliouk was in 1983 in the Congress Centre 20 kilometers outside Algiers where the PLO many times held it's meetings of the majlis al-watani al-filastini, the Palestinian National Council or parliament.I was there for the newspaper Het Parool. On the first day, while walking amidst arriving delegates, guests and press people like myself, I was grabbed by the arm by Issam Sartawi, the man who was in charge of the PLO's policy of dialogue with Israeli's, and who had become a good friend. Issam presented me to someone: 'Do you know who this is?' It turned out to be Kapéliouk, whom I knew as a regular contributor to Le Monde diplomatique. 'He's an Israeli,' Sartawi said. 'With a French passport,'I answered. 'Yes, 'Sartawi said, 'but he's reporting from here for the Israeli paper Yedioth Ahronoth.'And that, of course was unusual. Those were the days that Arafat, during the Israeli siege of Beyrout in August 1982, had given interviews to Uri Avnery (and Kapéliouk as well, which I did not know at the time). And Arafat had , about a year later, also received the Israeli's Matti Peled, Uri Avnery and Yaacov Arnon in his headquarters in Tunis (including a photo op which made it to most of the world press). But a journalist reporting in Hebrew for an Israeli journal from a country as radical as Algeria used to be in those days, that was something. I had the opportunity to see Kapeliouk a few times during the session of the PNC and he told me that he had to telex his pieces in phonetic language to Paris from where they were transmitted further to Tel Aviv. Laughing he told me that once the operators took his text to the security people of the PLO with the question what kind of language that might be, but the PLO men told them that Arafat had okayed it.During the sessions of the PNC there was a heated debate once about whether or not it was wise to continue the dialogue with Israeli's, after Israel's onslaught on Lebanon and the Palestinians in 1982 with it's 10.000 dead. During the debate the number two of the PLO, Abu Iyad, intervened and mentioned that the 'best book about the slaughter of Chabra and Chatila I've read, has been written by an Israeli, Amnon Kapéliouk, and he's sitting over there.' Another remarkable moment was after the Algerian government took us journalists in a Hercules plane on a trip 600 kilometers southward to a deserted part of the gigantic Algerian plateau, where the Algerians had constructed a base for some PLO-troops that had been evacuated from Beyrout. After we had watched them perform some mock fights and hold a parade accompanied by a band which played the Palestinina national hymn hartbreakingly out of tune, we walked to a kind of village where the military were to live with their families. All of a sudden I heard someone speaking Hebrew. Turning around I saw Imad Shakour, Arafat's main adviser for Israeli affairs at the time, having a lively conversation with Kapéliouk. I said something about it and Kapéliouk answered that he spent six years learning Arabic but that it was quite comfortable from time to time to be able to speak his own langage. At that very moment an American woman journalist came to Shakour and asked what in fact we were heading to. 'Oh, a kind of Palestinian kibbutz,' Shakour answered without blinking an eye. The last time I met Kapéliouk was a couple of years ago in Paris, at a meeting commemorating the murder, 20 years earlier, of Henri Curiel. Also this meeting was quite memorable. Curiel had been a colourful person. Descendant of a very well to do Egyptian Jewish family, he was one of the founders of the Egyptian Communist Party. Not long after the Egyptian revolution he went to Paris, where he started to work as a collector of funds and weapons, first for the Algerian revolutionairies of the FLN and lateron for the South-African ANC (which was the reason why he was murdered - presumably - by the South-African regime). In the meantime he was - what not everybody knows - the one who laid the foundation for contacts between Israeli's and Palestinians - contacts which first came into the open in 1974 after a meeting between the PLO-representative in Lonndon, Said Hammami, and the non-zionist Israeli marxist (Matzpen-member) Moshe Machover. Lateron the talks were to continue with contacts with important zionist Israeli's. It was that side of Curiel Kapéliouk (and me) were most familiar with as we both closely followed this dialogue. Last sunday Kapéliouk died, 78 years old. He was one of the founders of B'tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, a fine journalist, a modest person, a fighter against injustice.

Canadian author Naomi Klein (on the picture with Iyad Burnat of the Bil'ín Village Committee) called for an international boycott of Israel during a visit to the West Bank village of Bil’in on Friday, where she also attended a weekly demonstration against Israel’s separation wall, Ma'an reported. Klein held a news conference in Bil’in on the first of her nine days in the region, where she is promoting her book, the Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.“We’re rejecting normalization,” Klein said of her Middle East visit, “We’re rejecting the idea that there can be apolitical cocktail parties and book signings while violence like this is taking place so nearby.”The news conference took place under the shade of an olive tree, in full view of patrolling Israeli forces, the Wall and an Israeli settlement. Afterwards, 200 chanting Palestinian, Israeli and international demonstrators marched on the fence. Israeli soldiers rained tear gas on the marchers and teenagers hurled stones back at the soldiers. Choking on gas, two men had to be helped into an ambulance, and medics administered aid to dozens of protesters. Klein herself watched from a safe distance.As a part of her push for a boycott, Klein is donating the royalties her the book to her local publisher, Andalus, which specializes in translating Arabic texts into Hebrew. She is also working closely with Palestine’s Boycott National Committee (BNC), and refusing to cooperate with Israeli state institutions during what she called an “unusual book tour.”“We very much believe that culture is political and that cultural producers should use their skills in order to highlight the resistance to occupation and to strengthen that resistance,” she said, speaking alongside Basel Mansour, a member of Bil’in’s Popular Committee Against the Wall, and attorney Wisam Ahmad of the Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq.Klein said she was compelled to join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement during the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006. “I’m actually ashamed that it took me as long as it took me,” she said. “It’s a boycott of Israeli institutions. It’s a boycott of the economy,” Klein said. "It’s an extraordinarily important part of Israel’s identity to be able to have the illusion of Western normalcy.When that is threatened, when the rock concerts don’t come, when the symphonies don’t come, when a film you really want to see doesn’t play at the Jerusalem film festival because the people who made the film decided not to come then it starts to threaten the very idea of what the Israeli state is," she also said.Klein said the boycott campaign is "trying to create a dynamic which was the dynamic that ultimately ended Apartheid in South Africa." She added that while there are aspects of the situation in Palestine that are not as severe as they were under Aparthied in South Africa, "On the other hand, the south African state never bombed Soweto."Bil’in is near the settlement Modi'in Illit and the Wall. It is losing more than half its land to the wall and the settlement. It is pursuing legal action against two Canadian companies, Green Park International and Green Mount International, for their involvement in the illegal construction of the colonies. A preliminary hearing oon the case began in a Quebec court earlier this week.

Helena Cobban (Just World News - hier) meldde op haar blog dat Karim Sadjapour (van de Carnegie Stichting) tijdens een forumdiscussie zei dat 'he had heard from Rafsanjani allies in Dubai that Rafsanjani had been trying to assemble a quorum of the Assembly of Experts, which is the only body that can rein in-- or depose-- the Supreme Leader (Khamenei). "There are around eighty of them. They are very old indeed-- avergae age, 'deceased'," he said, "But thus far these efforts haven't succeeded, because many of the 'experts' are actually dependent on Khamenei in one way or another.'De kemphanen: links Khamenei, rechts Rafsanjani.

Een dag eerder (24/6) schreef een Iraanse journalist die anoniem wilde blijven en daarom een pseudoniem gebruikte, in The Nation (hier) al dat 'Khamenei’s anguished sermon on June 19 was not provoked simply by the popular uprising in the streets. According to a well-placed source in the holy city of Qom, Rafsanjani is working furiously behind the scenes to call for an emergency meeting of the Khobregan, or Assembly of Experts–the elite all-cleric body that can unseat the Supreme Leader or dilute his prerogatives. The juridical case against Khamenei would involve several counts. First, he would be charged with countenancing a coup d’état–albeit a bloodless one–without consulting with the Khobregan. Second, he would stand accused of deceitfully plotting to oust Rafsanjani–who is the Khobregan chairman and nominally the country’s third-most-important authority–from his positions of power. Third, he would be said to have threatened the very stability of the republic with his ambition and recklessness.

Rafsanjani’s purported plan is to replace Khamenei’s one-person dictatorship with a Leadership Council composed of three or more high-ranking clerics; this formula was proposed and then abandoned in 1989 by several prominent clerics. Rafsanjani will likely recommend giving a seat to Khamenei on the council to prevent a violent backlash by his fanatic loyalists. It is not clear if Rafsanjani will have the backing of the two-thirds of the chamber members needed for such a change, though the balance of forces within the Khobregan could be tipped by the events unfolding in the streets. As a symbolic gesture, Rafsanjani is said to favor holding the meeting in Qom–the nation’s religious center, which Khamenei has diminished–rather than in Tehran.where it has been held before.

Heftige kritiek MontazeriInteressant in het conflict is de positie van Groot-ayatollah Montazeri, de hoogste levende shi'itische autoriteit, en ooit de gedoodverfde opvolger van Khomeiny tot hij zich vrzette tegen de executies van die tijd, als te progressief aan de kant werd gezet en terug werd gestuurd naar Qom waar hij een school leidt - (met dank aan het NIAGblog - hier: According to Mowj news, Ayatollah Montazeri “harshly criticized the inappropriate actions of the authorities.”Ayatollah Montazeri praised the people of Iran for proving their braveness and maturity once again by participating in political and social scenes and expressed his regret that in reaction to people demanding their rights the authorities “have taken an approach and committed actions that is beyond imagination by any just human being.”

Montazeri said “I have been involved in the struggles against the previous (Shah) regime and the establishment of the Islamic Republic as much as I can. I feel ashamed in front of the people and clearly announce that beloved Islam…is different from the behavior of the current rulers. These actions and policies being done under the banner of religion will certainly cause large segments of people to become cynical regarding the principles of Islam and theocracy and will ruin the hard and valuable work of the Islamic ulema.”

Montazeri harshly criticized the militarization of the society saying “In a country and a regime which is proud of being Islamic and Shiite, and only 30 years after the victory of the revolution when people still remember the last scenes of the past regime, how could they turn Tehran and other large cities into a big garrison while the world is watching? They have put our brothers in the armed forces against the people. By using plainclothes agents, who are reminders of baton-carrying agents of Shah, cowardly shed the blood of the youth and men and women of this land.”

Montazeri then posed questions to authorities asking “was this the strategy of Prophet Mohammad and Imam Ali? They never cursed and accused their enemies and didn’t silence them by the sword…Now, a group of people thinking that they can commit any crime because they see themselves as being close to the government; attack student dorms, beat them and throw them down the building, commit chain murders and terrorize intellectuals of this nation and be immune from punishment; this is not compatible with any religion and custom.”

Montazeri advised the people to “pursue their reasonable demands while maintaining their calm.” He also advised the authorities, asking them to stop using harsh and irrational measures which destroys people’s trust and exacerbates the separation between them and regime. “[The authorities] should not create divisions among the people, apologize for their past mistakes, and understand that worldly positions are not permanent.”

“Street Combat Techniques”What follows is a brief guide for keeping the street protests alive and safe, as well as slowing or halting the advance of the security forces. This column is divided into two parts, the first of which you can read today, and the second part in the next issue of the ‘Street’ newspaper.Keep in mind that in these engagements the police are much better equipped and trained than you and I. They have the backup and immunity of the law on their side as well. Remember that when we talk about overcoming the police, we do not mean striking the police.Do not be tempted to stay and fight. Go to those places where the security forces are absent, and you will be better able to reach your objective (chanting slogans, writing slogans, and other similar activities).Always keep moving, whether in a group or alone. Close any gaps that form between you and other individuals. Do not stay in one place. Continuous movement will break the concentration of security forces.The security forces are trying to break up large groups into smaller groups. Try to compel the security forces to break down their formations before they have the opportunity to form them.

Do not be afraid.Any actions you carry out should be done in small groups, and you should anticipate what and where the action will be.Maintain a defensive mindset. Look out after one another.Always keep yourself faced in the direction of the security forces.Lock your arms together and form human chains. Keep moving briskly but without any commotion or agitation. Do not give the police an opportunity to plan and react.

Preparation:Staying out of prison and the hospital is not a very difficult thing. Most of the people involved in the street protests will be able to accomplish this. The point is that, with some foresight, you can turn the skills for staying alive under such conditions into a guide for surviving under these conditions.

Objectives of Gatherings:At the end of a day of rioting and clashes, it is not about someone being declared the victor of the battlefield. What is important is that you remain safe, and you will reach some of your objectives. On this topic, the main objectives you should keep in mind are:1.Instead of fighting, keep yourself and your friends safe from dangerous situations. 2.Find a way to accomplish your objectives (chanting slogans, etc.) without wasting your energy on fighting 3.Help people who have been wounded or arrested. Keep your thoughts on providing first aid and rescuing your friends from the police, not on fighting.

Stay together:Stay together in groups. At least every two people can look out for one another and, when necessary, react in tandem. Our idea of a united group is several known and skilled individuals, capable of acting as a single unit, anticipating the development of any alarming situations, and making swift decisions about how to react or carry out any preplanned scenarios. The more days your group has been together, the less time required for decision-making and the more efficient you are. Such groups will be able to act without discussion or consultation, because over time they will develop signals and rapid warning systems and even implements for clashes and self-defense. Carrying water, batons, paint, cardboard for making protest signs, first aid, and extra clothes is a tough job for one person, but if divided among five people, then it is a different case. Pay heed to how you dress. No one is expecting you to go out onto the streets with your armor and helmet, but in any case your clothes should be appropriate for the weather. Keep in mind the following:1.Covering your face with a mask or something else will prevent security forces from identifying you in the coming days. For this purpose, you can take a sleeve from a long-sleeve t-shirt and wrap it around your neck like a tied scarf – to cover your face when needed. You can cut out some holes in it for your eyes just enough to be able to see. 2.A baton or rod is not a bad thing either. A plastic sign can also serve as a good temporary shield. Plastic ribbons fastened to your forearms will also be useful, but your best means of defense will be a pair of comfortable running shoes. 3.Teargas is not a good thing at all. Some say that fermentation pills will reduce its effect, but this is not something you want to borrow from someone on the street. Some say a lot of rinsing with water will help. Whatever you do, refrain from rubbing the inflamed areas or taking a warm shower. If you are unsure of the best antidote, let the flow of air remove its effect. The effect can linger for 20 minutes. 4.One of you should take up position to observe the security forces and report in advance on their movements or assaults. 5.Throwing things often does nothing to harm the police, but it does give them a pretext to take a more severe approach. If you have to throw something, it should be to prevent any forward movement of security forces (like throwing glass to prevent security forces from closing in), not to harm them. In any case, if something has to be thrown, it should be undertaken by those on the front line. 6.If you are setting up barricades in the street to prevent security forces from advancing, be careful that afterwards you do not get your hands or feet caught. Use things that will impede attacks by men on motorcycles or require the police to break their discipline as they try to pass through them, while allowing you easy passage. 7.If you encounter any disciplined security forces like anti-riot police, the best line of defense is to remain unfixed and constantly change your location and formation. Movements that are easily detected and predictable are not an option when dealing with these forces. Never stay in one place for more than one minute.

dinsdag 23 juni 2009

A very special American president, this Barack Hussein Obama. He has Kenyan relatives, lived in Indonesia and seems to speak at least some words of Bahasa Indonesia. And now this from an interview with Anwar Iqbal in Pakistan's daily 'Dawn', yesterday:

“Any plan to visit Pakistan in the near future?”

“I would love to visit. As you know, I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook,” said Mr Obama.

“What can you cook?”

“Oh, keema … daal … You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets.

“You read Urdu poetry?”

“Absolutely. So my hope is that I’m going to have an opportunity at some point to visit Pakistan,” said Mr Obama.

Below, I've compiled some information on what's happening in Iran today from various sources...

Something's happening here. And by now, it's pretty clear what we are witnessing in Iran. No one can claim that the elections for President of Iran are indicative of a genuine democracy. Still, within the very narrow field of candidates that are allowed to run for office within highly regulated elections, there has been some fluidity. This allowed the IRI to have a safety valve, allowing some modicum of participatory government. This completely rigged election that reinstated a highlyunpopular president has now shown deep cleavages within the ruling classes of Iran.

Long before it could have been feasible to actually count votes, Ahmadinejad claimed a landslide victory in the June 12 presidential elections. Iranian presidential elections are determined by simple majority. Hours before the last polls closed (in LA), the official count was giving Ahmadinejad an insurmountable lead in the 60%s.

The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a public statement that with nearly 80% of the electorate casting votes, the winning candidate has received 24m votes in this magnificent and beautiful presidential elections. This is a genuine celebration that our enemies are seeking to undermine; they want to steal the sweetness of this victory from our people, so our dear youth must be completely alert and all candidates must refrain from any provocative words or actions. Given that the Supreme Leaders is the final power over Iran's judiciary and military forces, his statement essentially blocks off any appeal process and signals whose supporters will be receiving the butt end of batons.

The Ministry of Interior is charged with overseeing the election process. Last night, according to news reports, several officials of that ministry protested the way election results were being announced; however, links to these Iranian press reports were blocked on the internet.

Mousavi's spokesman claims he received word from the Ministry of Interior that he had won the elections and had already begun preparations for a large celebration on Sunday. His campaign offices in north Tehran were attacked and several of his campaign workers were hospitalized. He has announced a press conference at 2 pm Tehran time, but it is unclear if he will be allowed to do this. The directorMohsen Makhmalbaf announced from Paris that he was the spokesperson for Mousavi outside of Iran. By some estimates, Mousavi gained 80% of overseas votes with Iranians voting in England, N Korea, Iraq, US, Australia, etc.

donderdag 11 juni 2009

Today's Haaretz has a story from which it is becoming clear how Netanyahu is going to use the weak elements in Obama's approach towards him. In my posting of May 19 (in Dutch) about Netanyahu's visit to Washington, I wrote that Obama did two things well and made three mistakes. Well done, was that he did not go along with Netanyuahu's 'the-nuclear-threat-of-Iran-has-to-be-dealt-with-first-and-we-have-to-build-a- common-front-with-the-moderate-Arabs-against-it' story and kept to his diplomatic approach.The second thing was that he did not seek the confrontation and managed to maintain a positive atmosphere. But his mistakes were grave. I listed three: a reference to the Roadmap for Peace, a long outdated concept which was moribund from the start anyway, with the 14 conditions that Sharon attached to it in his days and with it's quid-pro-quo formula which gave Israel endless excuses to procrastinate. Furthermore his proposal that a wider circle of Arab and Moslim countries would start to build relations with Israel parallel to the the peace process's take off. That would put the horse behind the cart, as it would reward Israel before it would have had to deliver. (Definitely a non starter since most Arab and muslim countries are quite weary of having cordial relations with Jerusalem before real peace has been achieved with the Palestinians). And his third mistake: he did not pay attention to a poll taken by the Arab American James Zogby's bureau, from which he could have learned that at least half of America would back him if he took a tougher stand against Israel. That gave him a 'free ticket' to not only ask for a stop on the settlements, but also to present Netanyahu with parameters of a settlement (to whom he should talk, about what kind of a two state model, according to which timetable, and so on).And what does Haaretz report today: Netanyahu will, in the speech he is to give on Sunday, go along with the concept of two states according to the Roadmap. The state has to be demilitarized, and he attaches a 15th condition to the 14 provided by Sharon: The PA (undoubtedly the only partner he is willing to talk to) has to acknowledge that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. (Which equals foregoing the Right of Return and even the rights of the Palestinian Israeli's - and therefor is not even acceptable for Abu Mazen). At the same time N. embraces the concept that the circle of peace wil be broadened to a larger amount of Arab states while the process is going on. And he's willing to halt - temporarily - the building programs in the settlements. (But that's what Haaretz says, he is willing to do it, acording to the paper, but is not going to make mention of it himself). Let's see what happens on Sunday. But would you be happy with a reaction like this if you were Obama? And what would you do if you were in his shoes?

dinsdag 9 juni 2009

On Sunday June 8th the state prosecution made known that charges will be brought against 12 citizens of Shfaram in the North of Israel over de lynching of a Jewish gunman, Eden Natan-Zada in 2005. Natan-Zada was a IDF-soldier who in August 2005 emptied his M-16 rifle into the bus he was travelling on, killing four passengers before he was beaten to death. Some of the Shfaram citizens will be charged with murder, some others with assaulting police officers and again some others with rioting which led to Natan-Zada's death. De community of Shfaram has called for a general strike on Tuesday in protest. Member of Knesset Mohammed Barakeh (Hadash) called the decision an example of the double standards that are applied against the Jewish and Arab population in Israel. Barakeh: 'Police officers and civilians who stopped Palestinian attackers are rewarded with merits, while Shfaram residents who were only defending themselves are being prosecuted.'

Braude with his lawyer

On Monday the prosecution announced that it drops charges against settler Ze'ev Braude from Kiryat Arba. Braude shot two Palestians at close range in Hebron in December 2008 during the forced evacuation of a house that the settlers had occupied. The incident was filmed by an activist of the human rights group B'tselem. The two Palestinians Hosni Matriya, 44, and his father Abed al-Hai, 67, were wounded in the chest and arm respectively. El-Hai has been operated twice, Hosni is still awaiting surgery. From the statement of the prosecution can be concluded that, although Braude 'started the incident at the house of the plaintiffs', the two Palestinians would have been violent as well when they tried to stop the shooting.

B'tselem communicated on June 7 that police in Hebron closed the ivestigation in a case of severe beating of a Palestinian shepherd, Imran al-Nawaj (32) and his two children south of a settlement on a plot of land belonging to a resident of the nearby Samu' village. This happened in June 2008. The incident, whereby four masked settlers with wooden clubs attacked Nawaj and his family, was filmed by the Palestinian's daughter. Now, one year after it happened, the police claims, however, that 'the offenders are unknown'.

By way of an encore a picture of settler children -tikwatenu, our hope for the future - attacking an elderly woman, while soldiers look on passively. Where is this? Israel 2009? It could as well have been Germany 1938.

An articulate and charismatic President of the United States named Barack Hussein Obama giving a speech at Cairo University co-sponsored by al-Azhar, the most eminent institution of Muslim learning - now that's a new picture. Its enormous symbolic value is President Obama's biggest asset as he implements policy on the entire range of difficult issues he mentioned. The President stated, "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail." This is an excellent basis for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The President did not provide details on how the conflict should be resolved beyond general support for "two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security." But the meaning of this formulation is now contested due to its empty repetition by presidents and prime ministers whose actions and inactions have undermined it. Instead President Obama emphasized U.S. rejection of "the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," saying nothing about the future of those settlements already existing and their nearly 500,000 inhabitants. By limiting himself to an apparently pragmatic "first step," President Obama may have made his task harder. If he does not produce concrete results very soon on this limited, albeit it absolutely necessary, measure, then the potential value of his fine words in Cairo will soon diminish.Joel Beinin

The Constantly Widening Gap Between Words and Deeds

There are political circles and commentators who live from minute to minute. For them, every squeak from a world leader is a virtual earthquake, a real revolution. This is especially true now that we are dealing with a US president, who is handsome, articulate and even eloquent. The present level of manipulated excitement stems from the non-revelation that Barak Obama is against settlements and for the two state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also sees importance in improving the tainted image of the United States in the Arab and Moslem worlds. Now who can ask for anything more?

It is not that I disregard the significance of declarations but these must be carefully sifted so as to distinguish changes in the usual discourse. Repetition of old and pious wishes means little, while the appearance or disappearance of different formulations and elements is worth attention. But even before seeing how Obama is stacking up to his recent declarations, seen in Israel as criticism of Israeli policy, there is one new Obama element which demands urgent analysis.

The Normalization GambitObama has added a new, problematic, and dangerous dimension to the formula for the solution of the conflict. He has called on both the Palestinians and the Arab countries to take immediate steps, before the conclusion of peace with Israel, so as to normalize their relations with Israel. Now this demand is quite embarrassing for the so-called moderate pro-USA, Arab countries which already maintain a high level of geo-political coordination with Israel despite the occupation. Moreover, Obama's demand that an occupied people, the Palestinians, who are denied the most basic of rights to their very existence, should take steps normalizing their relations with the occupying power as a condition for reaching a peace agreement is ludicrous, to say the least. This idea, coming from Obama, may indicate a certain lack of understanding of the conflict. Any expression of moderation by the Palestinians has always been interpreted by Israel and its allies as a sign of weakness, and full scalenormalization in the region before peace will become the ultimate proof for the Israeli argument that the occupation is no barrier to peace.Reuven Kaminer

Nurit Peled:Well I enjoyed it tremendously. It was, like all his other speeches, a breath of fresh air. This man is honest, educated, extremely eloquent, extremely human, determined to do the right thing and has the best interest of people at heart.

The only thing that bothered me was that whereas he spoke of Violent Muslim extremists around the world, emphasising these were a potent minority of Muslims, He declared that Palestinians must abandon violence, as if all Palestinian are violent, as if this is their way of dealing with the problems, while we all know that most PAlestinians are not violent, dont have weapons and resist the occupation in non violent ways that should have been admired by such a man. Also, he did not use the word violence even once when describing Israel's conduct, instaed he limited himself to the settlelemts and the general evil of occupation.But this is a marginal remark. I do believe he means business and will force the Israeli government to stop lying and do the right thing.

Neve Gordon:President Obama is a great orator and, at least ostensibly, his Cairo speech does signify a change in US foreign policy in the Middle East. I would like to pause, however, on one sentence, the one in which he declares that the US "will not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I wonder why Obama inserted the word "continued" into the sentence and how does this word change the meaning of the phrase.

The word continued could refer to the illegitimacy of continued settlement growth, it could mean the illegitimacy of the ongoing settlement project, etc. The purpose of the word continued is accordingly not to clarify, but rather to render the meaning of the sentence unclear, imprecise. In a speech where every word is examined again and again, this is not an accident. If Obama had not inserted the word continued in the speech, everyone would know that in his opinion the settlement project as a whole is illegitimate, but he chose to be vague even if this is in fact what he thinks.

At the end of the day, though, it is less the words that count, and more the actions. Israel does not intend to freeze the settlement build-up nor is it going, of its own free will, to dismantle the illegal settlements and bring the settlers back home. The question, then, is what Obama will do. Will he exert enough pressure to save Israel from itself? Or will he allow, following his predecessors, to become a full blown Apartheid regime?

Ilan Pappé:The speech was refreshing in its music and tone. It was impressive to hear reference to Iran not as a demonised entity and to learn that the USA is in no need anymore for such demons in order to define itself and its role in the world.

I was impressed with the reference to the term and concept of Palestine and not a Palestinian state as well to his recognition that Palestinian suffering did not begin in 1967, but at least in 1948.I noticed, like everyone else, the correct pronunciation of Arabic and the employment of Islamic discourse and how well it was received. However, although it won accolades in the hall, I doubt whether it would satisfy people around the Muslim world. Many of them would wait for deeds and would be less impressed by gestures.

But on the whole, I have to admit that I was not disappointed, as I did not expect much. The substantial issues were not included in the speech, and I did not expect them to be. Even the settlements appeared only as illegitimate if they are continued, while their very existence is illegitimate. If the deal is, as one gathers from Rahm Emmanuel, is an America willingness to replace a Netanyahu government by a Livni government in return for endorsing systematic human rights violations in the Arab world, it means that cynicism still reigns. The Palestine issue would not be solved, human rights issues would not be improved and the destruction and dispossession of Palestine would continue.

But let us speak sweetly as we may have to eat our words, hopefully in this case. Whether this was a charade or a genuine opening of a new chapter only deeds and time would tell. Can Obama at all oppose Israel's source of power: the Congress? If he can, this is a different ball game.

One of the hottest debated items in the Netherlands - the holy cow in the national narrative of our time - is freedom of speech. The one who started it, I think, was Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In her zealous struggle against the Islam of her unhappy youth in Somalia and Kenya she called it an oppressive religion and the prophet Mohamed a tyrant and a pedophile. Instantly she became a hero of the freedom of speech, and got a lot of admirers. Among them was film director Theo van Gogh. He called muslims 'goat fuckers' and made a film with Hirsi Ali of which I, and most others I presume, already have forgotten the title, but which was one of the reasons why he was tragically murdered by a moron of Moroccan descent. That made Van Gogh not only a hero, but a real martyr of the freedom of speech. From then on this freedom was meant to include the right to offend.
After Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali came Geert Wilders with his bleached hair (I used to call him the walking paintbrush). Also Wilders made a film, Fitna, a clumsily scraped together collage of immoderately excited individuals with turbans, smoke from the skyscrapers of 9/11 and other explosions, plus a loose amount of quotes out-of-context from the Koran.
Next thing to do for Wilders was to put the Koran on an equal level with Hitlers Mein Kampf and to request that it be banned - like Hitlers masterpiece before it.
That caused some confusion. On the one hand, it made Wilders likewise a hero of free speech - like Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh before him, but on the other, there are some traditions in Holland and banning books is not one of them. Minister of Culture Plasterk thought he knew a way out from the dilemma: he suggested to abolish the ban on Mein Kampf. All he reaped was a storm of protest. Right now - some months later - the confusion isn't over. A few days ago liberal leader Mark Rutte suggested to do away with the prohibition on denying the holocaust. Also he ran into solid opposition, not least within his own party.

Back to Wilders, champion of the freedom of speech. He's a fan of Israel. In Israel they don't know discussions like we have. Once they had a law there that prohibited contacts with the PLO. Nowadays, with Avigdor Lieberman in the government and a solid ultra-rightist majority in parliament, there are some interesting new proposals going round which are more in line with the Zeitgeist. What would Wilders, champion of the freedom of speech and enemy of Islam, think of them. Do they go in the direction he wants?
To begin with there's a project of law underway in the Knesset which, if adopted, will punish with up to three years jail any person who commemorates the Naqba, the period during which Palestinians were chased away and Palestine became Israel. Israeli's call it Yom Ha'atsmaut (Independence Day). But is it logical to exspect Palestinians to dance in the streets as they commemorate the loss of Palestine and some 500 plus villages that were destroyed?
Or, also a project presently under discussion, a law that put anyone in jail for one year who questions the 'existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state'. Nice idea for the one out of five Israeli's who aren't Jewish. Or for people who want to question whether Jewish and democratic aren't in reality incompatible. Or - God forbid - want to discuss the feasibility of a bi-national state.Or what about the law from Lieberman's party, discussed by the Knesset right now, which requests from anybody who applies for Israeli citizenship that he/she declares his (her) loyalty to 'the Jewish, Zionist and Democratic state of Israel'. Or - still also a project - the law which demands that new Knesset-members swear loyalty before assuming office - not like before to the state and it's laws - but to 'the Jewish, Zionist and Democratic State of Israel, it's symbols and values'. Good idea for the Knesset-members of the Arab parties and the non-zionist ultra-orthodox. Israel could as well start to prohibit the Koran. Or the bible. Now, this is really Lieberman-land. Moslims, Arabs, peaceniks, lefties, all that is irregular and different from the mainstream can just shut up. Wouldn't Wilders be happy, over there?

Over mij

This blogname was derived from a satiric Arabic novel by the Palestinian Israeli Emile Habiby. In the ''The Secret Life of Saeed The Pessoptimist'' he uses absurdism as a weapon against the (ir)realities of daily life in Palestine/Israel. I consider it to be an example for how events in Israel/{Palestine best can be approached.
The subtitle is from a book by Dutch author Renate Rubinstein. In a way that is also still my motto.
My real name is Martin (Maarten Jan) Hijmans. I've been covering the ME since 1977 and have been a correspondent in Cairo. In 2018, I concluded the study 'Arabic language and culture' at the University of Amsterdam.
I started 'Abu Pessoptimist' in January 2009 out of anger about the onslaught of that month in Gaza. The other blog, The Pessoptmist, is meant to be a sister version in English. (En voor de Nederlandstaligen: ik wilde in november 2009 een tweede blog in het Engels beginnen en ontdekte te laat dat als je één account hebt, een profiel dan meteen ook voor allebei de blogs geldt. Vandaar dat het nu ineens in het Engels is... So sorry.)